IDW Publishing, along with comic production house Hazmat Studios and film production company Blind Spot Pictures, have announced an Iron Sky movie tie-in graphic novel in March.
Drawn and colored by the team of Gerry Kissell and Amin Amat, the artists behind IDW’s best selling graphic novel Code Word: Geronimo, and Xbox’s comic game tie-in Alan Wake. The book will also feature original pin-up art by Miguel Angel Abad and Darren Douglas, and chronicles the battle against the return of history’s most notoriously evil villains, the Nazis, who unbeknownst to us, escaped to the moon following their defeat in World War II.
Movie Poster
“The graphic novel is a prequel to the hit sci-fi action film Iron Sky produced by Blind Spot Pictures, and focuses on how the Nazis ended up on the moon, and how Udo Kier’s character, Wolfgang Kortzfleisch, became Der Uberfuhrer,” Kissell said. “Part steampunk and part comedy, the graphic novel was written masterfully by Alan Wake scribe, Mikko Rautalahti. who has a wicked sense of humor.”
The book will be 104 pages, with 67 pages of comic art with an additional 33 pages of production art, behind the scenes bonus material, and other exclusive material written by the film’s director, Timo Vuorensola.
So many sequels, so few of them have been good! Every once in a while comes one that lives up to the original. Mike Faber, Mike Gordon, Bobby Nash, and special guest Grundy chat reveal their favorites. And speaking of continuing missions, Star Trek/ Doctor Who comic book writer Scott Tipton takes a turn in The Geek Seat. As if that wasn’t enough, we take a look at AMC’s The Walking Dead as it heads into the fall finale. Plus the usual Rants, Raves, Shout Outs, and the ever-popular Khan Report!
141. Better in the Dark Get Reel-y Real! In this episode, Derrick and Tom go out of their comfort zone to discuss the rather large world of documentaries. Join the Boys Outta Brooklyn as the talk about some of their favorite docs, examine the way the genre has transformed and become more entertaining that some fiction films, and celebrate some of the best documentarians out there! Plus, lots of talk about an election that has since passed, and a reference to a forthcoming episode that’s already aired! You know, Troy Duffy thinks this show is unfair, so get to clicking!
So there I was playing Battlefield 3 on my PlayStation 3 like the addicted gamer I am. Yes, gentle reader, this middle aged (I’ll be 26 in April…what?) is a serious no joke gamer.
You name the system I have it and it’s hooked up to my big screen in my living room. In fact, except for my office where I write this and my bathrooms, I have a gaming system in every room in my house.
I love video games.
At any given moment I’m playing four games at one time. One on the PS3, one on the X-Box 360 another on the Wii and yet another on an old you-never-heard-of system called a 3DO. Shit, sometimes I even break out the Dreamcast! If you don’t know what a Dreamcast is then you are way to young or way to jaded to continue to read this particular rant.
To this day I think Dreamcast is the greatest game system ever but then again I think telling a woman she does look fat in that dress is a good move, so what do I know? Like I said, there I was playing Battlefield 3 on my PlayStation 3 like the addicted gamer I am until I get to a level and no matter what the heck I do I can’t get pass this level. So when stuck like this what do I do?
I cheat. Duh.
Every major game release, of which the Battlefield franchise is one, has a strategy guide that costs a pretty penny and all I need do is consult said guide and I’m on my way to the next level.
What a waste of money.
I’m sure there are a zillion reasons to pay a grip for the strategy guide but the only reason I can see is to show me how to get pass a level I’m having an issue with. Anything other than that is a waste of my time and my money.
Why is the strategy guide a waste of money if it can help you get pass an impossible level? Because real gamers don’t use strategy guides…they get the information free on the net. I freely admit I may be additive to gaming but I’m no where near as good as some people so I need help every now and then. Most hard-core gamers measure success in hours, as in how many hours it takes them to finish or “beat” a game.
Not me.
It can take me weeks sometimes months to finish a game. In some cases I never finish a game. I just leave it until I can come back to it and figure it out. So, no, I don’t use the net to resolve every single road block I come across but I’m not a fan of “puzzles” as in figure some shit out instead of shooting somebody to get to the next level.
I only resort to the net when something strikes me as so dumb (making me even dumber because I can’t figure it out) I no longer want to deal with it. That moment came in Battlefield 3 in a level called ‘ a rock and a hard place.’
I get to the part in this level where a Russian jet is tearing me and my team’s ass apart. To defeat this jet I have to find a stinger missile launcher and take it down. I find where the stinger is but there is no stinger and after about an hour of trying to equip the words that say stinger missile (only the word is there; the missile is nowhere to be seen). I’m pissed as shit so I go on the net to see what simple thing I’m missing.
The walkthrough on the net is simple enough, in fact I did every single thing it says to do on the walkthrough but I still cannot equip the stinger.
Do you know why I can’t pick up the stinger and blow the Russian jet out of the sky? Because the game has a glitch and no matter what the fuck I do I will never be able to grab that stinger because the game is corrupted, flawed, broken or whatever you deem is the right word for something that does not work in a video game.
I’m beyond pissed when I learn (on line) that this is the issue with the game that I paid $60 goddamn dollars for.
Then it hits me.
This is the reason video games are not doing anywhere near the business in the movie theaters that comics are doing. Except for one franchise, Resident Evil, video games made into movies are woefully lacking the punch at the box office that comics have in the film industry.
Video games have a massive legion of fans but cannot translate those eager thumbs from the controller to pulling out their wallets to buy a couple of movie tickets. You would think that video game movies would be leading box office sales any and every weekend they debut.
Nope.
Here’s my theory for what’s it’s worth why the video game industry still eats the dust of the comic’s industry when it comes to movies.
At the heart of the video game industries attempt to bridge the movie world is a great big glitch. Much like the glitch in Battlefield 3, which I now have to return to Game Stop and explain to them why it took me months to return the game.
Because it took me months to get to that damn level, Dick Heads…duh.
In a nutshell the video game industry is still a babe in the woods compared to comics. Comic book creators, publishers and even the evil empire that can be publishers have a long relationship with the other evil empire, Hollywood.
Hollywood and the creators of comic book content are at a point now (mostly) where we respect each other and (mostly) that respect results in movies like The Dark Knight.
Hollywood does not really respect the video game industry yet that’s why you get movies like Max Payne.
Great game franchise, movie not so much. Truth be told, I really liked that movie but then again I love the Max Payne games and I’m sure that accounted for the reason I liked the movie so much. It really tried (at certain points) to do the game justice.
Therein may lay the heart of the video game glitch, again in my opinion, to get a hit in Hollywood you just can’t depend on the fans of the original material. You are not driving a 40-year old woman dragged to see Max Payne by her husband into a video store no matter how bad she may like the movie.
And she won’t like the movie because it will make no sense to her because she has not played the game.
Get it?
To put it another way, I loved the original David Lynch Dune movie. I loved it because I understood it having read the book. My date at the time, a Sunday school teacher, looked at me after the film and asked, “What the fuck was this about?”
Yeah, she was a Sunday school teacher.
Make no mistake, the video game will get it right and then all (except me because I’m Master Of The Universe!) will bow down to what will be the most powerful engine in the movie business. That is going to happen, when I can’t say but it’s going to happen.
Well that’s my two cents. Now I’m off to Game Stop (greatest store ever) to return Battlefield 3. I’m sure they have encountered this before and will have a fix all ready for me.
I wish I could say that about Hollywood and the gaming industry.
Ladies and gentlemen, it’s time for a blast from the past! After years and years of intending to, I finally bought and watched the Director’s Cut of Daredevil (thank you, Black Friday sales! $4 is a reasonable price, eh?). I remember watching the original in the theater when it came out in 2003, and enjoying parts of it despite the overall unbalanced and less-than-cohesive feeling of the whole product. I also remember the cascade of negative reviews, and I can’t say I disagreed with a majority of what they said. I know after the Director’s Cut was released, however, it got more positive reviews, and it turns out those were also deserved.
With the re-watch of the movie in its more fully intended form, I’ve come to the conclusion that the most egregious error made was the inclusion of Elektra, or at least Elektra as we get her in this movie. There are two problems with the Elektra storyline. The first is that it gave the director an opportunity for one more cheesy fight scene than would otherwise have made it in, that being the horrendously cheesy and overlong almost dance-like fight scene when Matt meets Elektra. That thing is so ridiculously choreographed that when it starts, you feel like you’ve hopped movies into West Side Story and they’re about to run up and down the playground see-saws singing or something. I can almost see Matt Murdock balanced on the end of a park bench, arms flung wide as he delivers a little solo. It’s cringe-inducing, and pulls me out of the story.
I actually like most of the fight scenes in this movie, but there are snippets of others that are cheesy, too, namely when first Daredevil and then Elektra whirl their weapons around the first time we see them suited up. I could have enjoyed those bits if they were shot a little differently, to show Daredevil, say, routinely checking his weapons to make sure they’re functioning before he goes out, or to show Elektra warming up for her little sandbag-vendetta practice. But as shot, they just look like they’re posing for nobody, and are hilariously too comic book for an otherwise fairly serious and dark movie. Added to that first fight scene, those bits also pull me out of the story.
The second issue I have with the Elektra story is that it’s just too much story to be trying to fit into one movie with all the rest. Granted I understand it’s part of the larger storyline here, but if the entire Elektra thing was lifted out, almost nothing except a tiny bit of Daredevil tragic-story-ness would be missing, and the storyline could surely have been reworked in a way to close any gaps caused by her absence.On the other hand, by including it, we get a hurried “romance” that isn’t firmly established enough to make it feel very real or engaging, as well as the too-minimal establishment of Elektra’s father as a character. If the elder Natchios existed just to be eliminated or shown to be part of Kingpin’s empire, his being a mostly stock character would have been fine. But given that we’re supposed to care about him and his connection to Elektra thanks to her larger part in the storyline, his negligible appearance and then disappearance as a character is not the tragedy we’re supposed to feel it is.
As opposed to the whole Elektra storyline (and despite the fact that I’ve loved Jennifer Garner in action roles ever since my addiction to Alias), I think the movie would have been much better served to have used the established story of Elektra as an ex if she needed to be there at all; or to have found another Kingpin patsy than the Natchios family for this particular story. Also, in my imaginary world, cutting out the Elektra storyline would have eliminated Fox’s ability to introduce the Elektra movie, which, let’s face it, could not have been made better by any amount of cutting or tweaking, despite Jennifer Garner’s ass-kicking ways and dimpled smile. Man that thing was terrible, boring, and disjointed to the point of complete incoherence.
However, I will say that there was one thing I loved in the romance storyline: the bit about Matt being able to “see” Elektra via the rain. It was beautifully done, and was later used to great effect in the funeral scene with the umbrella.
Despite Elektra and the bits of cheese, there’s actually a lot to love about this movie. The main storyline is pretty good when the additional scenes of the Director’s Cut are added. With those, we actually get a cohesive story, rather than the chopped version we saw in theaters. The cast is mostly super-enjoyable, too. I know Affleck got flak for his portrayal of Daredevil, but honestly, I think he’s very good, particularly as Matt and when Jon Favreau is around to add a little warmth and comedy as Foggy Nelson (I liked Favreau as Happy Hogan in the Iron Man movies, too. He should be in more movies). For some reason Affleck looks a little weird in the mask (he has a strong chin and jawline and yet it makes him look slightly chubby-cheeked) but I blame the costume department, rather than Affleck, for that (and I liked the rest of the costume).
The late Michael Clarke Duncan is wicked menacing and convincing as the Kingpin – you get the sense of both his business smarts and his street smarts from his scenes, plus the feeling that you really, really just do not want to be in the same room as him, ever, because you never know what he might do next. Joe Pantoliano is perfect as reporter Ben Urich (Urich’s always been a favorite of mine in the comics, and being a journalist, I loved the way they have him popping up everywhere as he diligently goes after the story, and when they show him writing at the end). And I got a kick out of Kevin Smith’s cameo, as well as all of the shoutouts to Daredevil writers and artists.
I have to say Colin Farrell as Bullseye might be my favorite casting in this movie. That may seem surprising, given that every single second he’s on screen he chews scenery like it’s the most important meal of the day; but given the character he’s playing, that’s actually perfect. Pardon my French, but Bullseye in the comics is bug-fuck nuts, as well as being crazy arrogant and not giving shit one about the lives of others, and Farrell pulls that personality onto the screen with every swagger and look of madness-laced annoyance at everyday occurrences. I love the little scene where he chokes the chatty old woman with a carefully aimed peanut, as well as when the Kingpin walks in and Bullseye’s just casually hanging out in his office waiting for him, boots up on the desk, sharpening a pencil like the ones he just killed the guard with. The scene where he goes through the airport, while completely over the top, is priceless too. I also love how he asks for a costume (but happily, doesn’t get one) and the fact that they let Farrell keep his Irish accent for the movie, even though it doesn’t fit with the comics origin. I like the idea of Bullseye as a crazy Irishman (who gets mad when people call him a crazy Irishman).
Some of my absolute favorite parts of the movie have to do with both the look of the movie – with all the night scenes, the blue-tinged lighting, and the gritty streets, we really get the feel of this being Hell’s Kitchen NYC and Daredevil’s NYC, not the tourist variety – and the fight scenes. Despite the high leaps in those scenes looking weirdly fake to me (something about the way they were shot, I think), I absolutely adore everything else about the way they portray Daredevil’s unique and fluid fighting style, including the way he uses his white cane/weapon (although his is red and white) and the way he uses the city as basically one giant jungle gym from which to move and fight. More than anything, though, I love the way they portray both his enhanced sonar senses and how he lives as a blind man. Even years later, I remember my original viewing of the scene that shows him moving through his apartment, choosing his suit by the Braille tag labels and folding his money, stored in separate Braille-marked boxes, into different shapes to differentiate the denomination. Less well-remembered but equally cool are the parts of fight scenes that show, from his viewpoint, how he uses sound to fight, as well as how sound can be used to overpower him. And, as mentioned, the effect of water on his “sight,” used both in the Elektra scenes and in the Kingpin fight scene, is brilliantly done.
Oddly, in looking back at this movie, which appeared two years before Batman Begins, I can see how with some adjustments this could have been, if not as great (Batman Begins being just one of those pretty-much-perfect movies to me), something a bit closer to that; and how it actually was in much the same vein as that movie in mood and tone. I think that realization was lost to me (and probably a lot of other people) on first viewing by the lack of the Director’s Cut scenes and the inclusion of the cheesier story elements. However, with the darkness (both visually and in the story) and the noir feel of the movie that stems from the Frank Miller stories by which it was inspired, as well as the modern sense of a gritty NYC, the full version of the movie actually holds up pretty well nine years after it was made.
But, fun as this retrospective may be (for me, at least; your mileage may vary), why am I writing about all of this nine years after the movie’s release? Well, mainly because in October of this year, the film rights reverted back toMarvel Studios; and I’d really, really love to see a new Daredevil movie from Marvel. There is a lot I love about the character and his surrounds, including his stance as a crusading lawyer and helper of other superheroes and his unique fighting style. I also like his devotion to and the stories’ focus on Hell’s Kitchen, which infuses the area itself with its own unique comic-book character and makes it one of the more “real”-feeling settings in comics, since it’s both a strong presence in the stories and based on a real and not-too-overwhelmingly-large area. And, cheesy as it may be, I love the fact that in the Daredevil stories, justice is literally blind. What can I say: I’m a sucker for a good double-meaning.
As of a few days ago, Marvel has not announced any plans for a new Daredevil movie, but I hope to see that change sometime soon. I’m not sure what storyline I’d want them to follow – but a reboot could be a lot of fun if they kept the basic origin and some of the great elements from this one but did a different introductory storyline. With Daredevil, I think that would be entirely possible, since his origin itself doesn’t need to take up too much of the movie (they established it pretty efficiently here and I didn’t feel anything was lacking) and his job as a lawyer gives plenty of opportunities for crime-fighting stories that encompass both halves of his life. What do you think a good focus for a new movie would be? Tell me in the comments!
Okay, first another bow toward my friend and colleague, John Ostrander. No sense in reviewing Skyfall, the new James Bond flick, since, in his November 18th column, John already wrote virtually everything I might have written about the entertainment. Let us agree: best Bond ever, for the reasons John cited.
It’s been a banner year for this kind of show, hasn’t it? We had two of the best superheroes – no, let’s not be mealy mouthed, Marvel’sAvengers and The Dark Knight Rises were, though quite different, the best superhero movies yet. (You want to disagree? Fine. This is only my opinion and, doggone it, I’ve misplaced my cloak of infallibility. Wonder if I could borrow the pope’s…) I think there’s been, among media types, a discernible learning curve. They have learned how to do this kind of material really well. Not that all such material is really good, but now there is the possibility of it being as good as anything out there. And, maybe more important, there has arisen the consensus that it ought to be good; no need to phone it in just because it’s that comic book stuff.
Reasons? Hey, do I look like a savant? Let’s just make one guess and hurry on. The guess: for the past couple of decades, many (if not most?) of the bright, creative kids have been comics readers. The form is familiar to them and they’re friendly to it. “Of course the movies can be good,” they might say. “Why wouldn’t they be good?”
The first Hollywood guys who tried adapting comics to the screen were on unfamiliar turf; to the current guys it’s home territory.
That was the guess, plus addenda. Now, the moving on, in the form of a confession: When I was a drifting, quasi-beatnik/peacenik, still on the south side of the dreaded 30, Bond was a Guilty Pleasure. A peacenik buddy (who was not as quasi as I was) and I saw the movies, first run, and enjoyed the action and adventure and romance and pretty females – all the Bondian delights – but! There was what I thought was an unhealthy glorification of consumerism – no, whoever has the most toys when he dies doesn’t always wins – and this aspect is, blessedly, almost absent from Skyfall. The other guilt-inducer was a bit thornier: wasn’t James Bond a fascist?
Sure, the word “fascist” has been tossed around and in the process lost some precision, but it usually involves unquestioning obedience to some authority figure, presumably for the common good. (Has any leader ever claimed to act for the common bad?) Strongly implicit in this conduct is that the authority figure gets to decide what the good is. So enter Bond: His friendly neighborhood authority figure, M, tells him to go commit bloody mayhem and he does. No questioning of right or wrong–just do the mayhem, often merrily. Recent history has demonstrated the inadvisability of blind obedience to the boss.
Again, we can pretty much find Skyfall innocent. The authoritarianism is muted, and neither Bond nor M seem to be happy about the mayhem. And they both seem fallible.
Maybe this kind of analysis is bringing too much baggage to what is, after all, just show-biz. But I’m glad I did it 50 years ago, and I don’t think it’s unhealthy to do it now.
It starts with notes on a piano, played in the upper register, sounding like a child’s piano. We focus in on an old cigar box as a child’s voice, a girl, hums tunelessly as small hands open the box, revealing what looks like junk but is a child’s hidden treasures. The hands explore what is there, picking out a dark crayon and rubbing across a piece of paper. Letters emerge giving us the title of the film as the main theme returns, first with flute and harp and then a full orchestra. It’s a waltz, elegiac and slightly sad, evoking times past.
So begins To Kill A Mockingbird, Robert Mulligan’s 1962 film based on Harper Lee’s 1960 novel. Set in rural Alabama during the 1930s and the depths of the Depression, the story is told from the viewpoint of young Scout Finch, includes her brother Jem, and their father, the widowed lawyer Atticus Finch. It covers a year and a half during which time Atticus is called on to defend Tom Robinson, a black field worker accused of attacking and raping a white girl, Mayella Ewell.
I had the inestimable pleasure recently of seeing To Kill A Mockingbird up on the big screen as part of the film’s Fiftieth Anniversary celebration. I can’t recall if I saw it on the big screen when it first came out; I certainly haven’t seen it that way in decades. It has a force and emotional impact that I don’t feel from the small screen viewings of it. Mind you, I’m happy to watch DVD versions but I was happier to see it on the big screen.
The film brims with talent. It won a best actor Oscar for Gregory Peck who embodied Atticus Finch as well as the Oscar for best adapted screenplay, won by Horton Foote. Elmer Bernstein, drawing heavily from Aaron Copland, wrote one of the most beautiful film scores I know. Robert Duvall made his film debut here, as did Alice Ghostley and Rosemary Murphy. The two young actors playing Scout and Jem, Mary Badham and Philip Alford, are so natural and unforced that it amazes me that both had never acted before their debuts here.
Something else that strikes me in the movie is the depiction of African-Americans. There is a context for the film in its time that younger filmgoers may not know. The major Civil Rights legislation, such as the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and the Civil Rights Act of 1968 had not yet occurred. The Selma to Montgomery march in Alabama wouldn’t be until 1965. The March on Washington, where Martin Luther King, Jr. gave his famous “I have a dream” speech, would happen a year later. In his inauguration speech as governor of Alabama on January 14, 1963, George Wallace proclaimed “I say segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever.” In June of 1963, he stood in the entry way of the University of Alabama in an attempt to keep two black students from entering.
That’s what the country and the South and Alabama looked like when To Kill a Mockingbird premiered. In the face of this massive refusal to see African-Americans as anything but second-class citizens (when they weren’t portrayed as subservient and altogether inferior), the movie gives us people of color, individuals, rich in humanity. It leaves no doubt that the accused, Tom Robinson, is innocent; it is Mayella Ewell’s father, Bob Ewell, who is probably the guilty one and he emerges as the vicious, racist animal. Brock Peters’ portrayal of the tragic Tom Robinson captures the fear of the doomed man. There is a dignity to all the black characters that gives the lie to the segregationist’s creed. The movie allowed white audiences to look at black characters and empathize with them, see themselves in the oppressed people, to identify with them. In Gregory Peck’s great speech at the end of the trial, we are sitting in the jury box. We, the audience, are being asked to judge. And we must confront the guilty verdict that the jury in the movie brings in and ask ourselves how we would have decided.
What was true in the 30s in Alabama was true in 1962 when the movie premiered. I would not presume to speak to the experience of African-Americans today. I am white, male, getting older, and I am a product of my times. I have heard too many whites I know still using the “n word”. They assume its safe to do so around me; after all, I am white as well. I correct that assumption as it comes up. I have also heard whites saying that they would never vote for a black man for president. Almost three fourths of the white males who voted in the last election voted against Barack Obama. Perhaps some of it was a difference with the President’s policies but how much more of it is because the President is black?
To deny another their humanity for whatever reason is to deny our own. In context of our time as well as the time it was made, To Kill A Mockingbird remains relevant. It also remains a beautiful, heartfelt film. It makes us feel for another person different from us and with that empathy, breaks down barriers. It’s what pop culture does that nothing else can quite do. It entertains as it opens our hearts and that can change minds. That is where hope lies.
In 1970, the Vietnam war was still raging, people were debating and protesting the Asian struggle and the Greatest generation was wondering what happened to duty, service, and love of country. After a period when World War II movies appeared to have exhausted their welcome at the movie theater, along came Patton with a riveting performance of a true American hero from George C. Scott. Few images that year surpassed the one of Patton on the stage, flanked by the largest American flag ever seen. It seared patriotism into our hearts and minds, reminding us all what it took to win a war.
It did not ignite a fresh wave of war films, but it did stand the test of time, often appearing on Best War Films of All Times lists and Scott will be forever connected with Patton. After all, the film earned seven Academy Awards, including Best Picture, Best Actor (George C. Scott), Best Director (Franklin Schaffner), and Best Original Screenplay (Francis Ford Coppola). This 2:52 movie is an unsparing look at a controversial war hero given his rebellious nature, something military command usually frowns on.
The new Blu-ray release from 20th Century Home Entertainment is most welcome and a vast upgrade from the 2008 Blu-ray edition. That was an early conversion of an older film and it didn’t work terribly well, but this new release is fully restored and brings the grime and grit of the European Theater of War into sharp focus. The 65mm production has finally been brought to modern discs in a way that embraces the subject matter and makes for good viewing at home.
General George S. Patton Jr. was a military genius and he was the first to admit it. He was a harsh, brutal megalomaniac who was also a brilliant strategist. He had the highest casualty count among generals in the field, but he was also the one the Nazi regime feared the most. There is a definite connection between the two facts and exploring that propels the film. Coppola’s script does a fine job exploring the contradictory nature of the man. Additionally, this is one of the first films to portray a less than idealized version of the Allied effort, showing rivalries between American generals and a less than stellar relationship between the British and American commands. Patton himself was driven and therefore drove his men beyond endurance. Nothing would stand in his way, be it shell-shocked soldiers (who deserved a slap in the face, not sympathy) or mules that blocked the road. He gets him comeuppance, though, sent by Dwight D. Eisenhower as a decoy to keep the Germans from stumbling over the Normandy invasion.
The original assortment of special features from the 2008 release are all here in standard definition and it’s fun to hear Coppola in the intro and commentary talk about these early days in his career. The highlight though is History Through the Lens: Patton: A Rebel Revisited (1:30), a feature-length documentary by Ken Burns on the real Patton. Additionally, there are Patton’s Ghost Corps (46:38), giving dozens of surviving veterans a chance to share their memories of serving under Patton; Michael Arick’s 1997 The Making of Patton (49:46), with Scott, Oliver Stone, Richard Zanuck, Jerry Goldsmith, and others talking about the production; Production Still Gallery (36:24); and a Behind the Scenes Gallery (53:19).
The Big Book of Bronze #5 will be released November 23rd on Lulu.com. At 282 pages, this tome of Doc Savage information, by the leading Doc Savage authorities of our time, holds insights into the Man of Bronze that you will be thrilled to read and ponder. In addition to the documentation of Doc Savage musings, you will find the must have companion to the new Jazz CD (Bronze Nemesis) by Scott Robinson about the music and his meeting with James Bama, the Ron Ely interview conducted in September where Ron discusses the movie in detail with Steve Ringgenberg, the detailed reflections of a meeting with Norma Dent by Dean Russell and an article by the current Kenneth Robeson: Will Murray.
Check out the great Doc Savage reading below and order your books in time for Christmas!
WHO IS FRED FORINO? by William Lampkin HIS NAME WAS DOC SAVAGE by Fred Forino WHO IS JACK JUKA? by Joe DeVito COLLECTING ORIGINAL DOC SAVAGE ART by Jack Juka WHO IS JAY RYAN? by Terry Allen A GLEAMING SPIKE OF STEAL AND BRICK by Jay Ryan THE RED DEATH’S ELEPHANT GUN by Jay Ryan A FLOOR BY ANY OTHER NAME… by Jay Ryan BULLETS OVER BROADWAY by Jay Ryan WHO IS JEFF DEISCHER? COMING DOWN OUT OF THE TREES by Jeff Deischer WHO IS STEVE DONOSO? THE BRONZE ARCHIVE by Steve Donoso WHO IS MATT HIEBERT? by Lokke Heiss FOUNDATIONS FOR DOC SAVAGE’S PHYSICAL DEVELOPMENT by Matt Hiebert WHO IS JULIAN PUGA? THE LAST REGISTERED DOC SAVAGE ADVENTURE by Julián Puga WHO IS DAFYDD NEAL DYAR? by Allyson Dyar DOC SAVAGE AND THE WORLD OF TOMORROW by Dafydd Neal Dyar WHO IS COURTNEY ROGERS? by Pat Lilja THE MYSTERY OF THE DOUBLE-USE PFEIFFER COVER by Courtney Rogers WHO IS DEAN RUSSELL? by Jay Ryan REFLECTING ON NORMA DENT by Dean Russell WHO IS WILL MURRAY? by Matt Moring MAN OF MIGHT by Will Murray WHO IS SCOTT CRANFORD? by Wayne Skiver THE ADVENTURES OF A BRONZE PAINTING by Scott Cranford WHO IS JIM COX? DOC SAVAGE AND THE ASIAN MARTIAL ARTS by Jim Cox WHO IS RICK LAI? by Art Sippo DOC SAVAGE AND THE CAGLIOSTRO LEGACY by Rick Lai FIRST SIGHTING (Part Two) by Fred Forino FIRST SIGHTING (Part Three) by Fred Forino WHO IS DUANE SPURLOCK? by Chuck Welch DENT’S HARD BOILED DOC: SATAN BLACK by Duane Spurlock WHO IS TIM FAUROTE? by Bert Ehrmann DOC SAVAGE: THE MAN OF…PLASTIC by Tim Faurote WHO IS ARTHUR C. SIPPO MD, MPH? by Rick Lai DOC’S LEGAL AIDE: AN APPRECIATION OF HAM BROOKS, ESQUIRE by Art Sippo WHO IS SCOTT ROBINSON? by Michael Steinman BRONZE NEMESIS: THE MAKING OF A MUSICAL ADVENTURE by Scott Robinson WHO IS STEVE RINGGENBERG? DOC SAVAGE SPEAKS: RON ELY! by Steve Ringgenberg
Learn more about The Big Book of Bronze series here.
Like so much of the world, I went to see Skyfall this weekend. I went with my friend Karen, who hadn’t seen a James Bond movie in a few decades. We both had a fantastic time, and if you haven’t already gone and you like action movies, you should go, right now. This column will still be here when you get back. And, if you can’t go right this second, I shall do my best to avoid spoilers.
There are all kinds of reasons to enjoy this movie: Daniel Craig is a terrific Bond; the locations are exotic and beautiful; the set pieces, including the opening scene and the fight in the glass building, are inventive and exciting; the cinematography is glorious.
For the purposes of this column, I want to talk about a feminist reason to like it: M. Or rather, Judi Dench. Dame Judi is 78 years old, and, in this movie, she looks it. Her hair is gray, almost white. Her face is wrinkled. Her body, at least as it appears in the wardrobe assigned to her, is slack.
None of this makes any difference, because she is not a “Bond girl.” She is M. She is the head of MI6, and she is determined to do the best possible job she can. Her dedication is to her mission and her country. Because this is a James Bond movie, the emphasis is on her relationship with James Bond. However, this relationship, while cordial, is never less than professional, even when both of their lives are at stake. And it is the most compelling relationship in the whole movie.
Have we seen a female character less sexualized in a modern mass movie? The closest I can remember is Helen Mirren in the comic book-inspired movie Red (and also probably everything else she has done for the last decade). And even she is as famous for how she looks in a bikini (and at her age!) as for her formidable talent.
Both Skyfall and Red fail the Bechdel test because neither film has enough fully-realized female characters for either actress to have a significant conversation with another woman. Still, I think the success of both films bodes well for the acceptance of complicated, adult women in pop culture.
Unfortunately, I can’t say the same thing about comics. For the most part, older female characters at the Big Two, like Aunt May or Martha Kent, are mothers or mother-figures. Heavy women like Etta Candy are comic sidekicks.
The worst travesty is what has happened to my pal John Ostrander’s creation, Amanda Waller. Originally a tough, no-nonsense,solidly professional woman (see M, above), she was re-cast in The New 52 as a babe. Instead of wearing sensible suits appropriate to her job, she is no flaunting the tits and ass, with high heels that accentuate her long legs, which look even longer in her short, short skirts.
I suppose it’s possible this re-design was planned in advance of the Green Lantern movie, in which Angela Bassett played Waller in a role that was clearly supposed to mimic Samuel L. Jackson’s Nick Fury. However, Angela Bassett is in her mid-50s. Amanda Waller in the DC books? Not that I can tell.
There are lots of reasons that movies make more money than comics. There are a lot more places to see them, for one thing. We would do well to remember that another reason is that they portray a much broader perspective on reality, one which attracts more fans.
No sane person would claim that Hollywood isn’t a sexist, patriarchal boys’ club. The difference is that it’s a sexist, patriarchal boys’ club that wants to make a profit, and they are smart enough to know the best way to do that is to sell more tickets.
